Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Publication activity, citation impact and bi-directional links between publications and patents in biotechnology

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study focuses on publication activity, citation impact and citation links between publications and patents in biotechnology. The European Union (EU), US, Japan and China are the most important global players. However, the landscape is changing since the EU and the US are losing ground because of challenges from a group of emerging economies. National profiles differ between the two groups of main players and upcoming countries; the focus on red biotechnology in the US and Europe is contrasted by propensity for white and green technology in Asia. Furthermore, the subject profile of biotechnology papers citing patents and cited by patents as well as the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in scientific literature is explored. Papers that cite patents tend to reflect propensity towards white biotechnology while patent-cited publications have a higher relative share in red biotechnology. No significant difference concerning the citation impact of publications ‘citing patents’ and ‘not citing patents’ can be found. This is contrasted by the observation that patent-cited papers perform distinctly better in terms of standard bibliometric indicators than comparable publications that are not linked to technology in this direction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In order to avoid distortions of indicators caused by its extension of the European Union (EU) in 2004 and 2007, EUR covers only the publication output of the 15 members according to the situation before 1 May 2004.

References

  • Albert, A., Granadino, B., & Plaza, L. M. (2007). Scientific and technological performance evaluation of the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC) in the field of Biotechnology. Scientometrics, 70(1), 41–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balassa, B. (1965). On the appropriate interpretation of the revealed comparative advantage. Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, 33(2), 99–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, P., Gupta, B. M., & Garg, K. C. (2000). Patent statistics as indicators of competition an analysis of patenting in biotechnology. Scientometrics, 47(1), 95–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batagelj, V., & Mrvar, A. (2002). Pajek-analysis and visualization of large networks. Graph Drawing, 2265, 477–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, T., & Glänzel, W. (1990). United Germany: The new scientific superpower? Scientometrics, 19(5–6), 513–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, T., Glänzel, W., Schubert, A. (1985), Scientometric indicators: A 32 country comparison of publication productivity and citation impact. (424 pp). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.

  • Czerwon, H. J., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1989). Eine quantitative Analyse der internationalen Publikationsaktivität auf dem Gebiet der Biotechnologie. Informatik, 36(4), 157–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalpé, R. (2002). Bibliometric analysis of biotechnology. Scientometrics, 55(2), 189–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Looze, M. A. (1994). The application of scientometric tools to the analysis of a sector in plant biotechnologies: nitrogen fixation. Scientometrics, 30, 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Looze, M. A., & Ramani, S. V. (1999). Biotechnology patent applications in Europe—A look at the difference between French, British, and German patent application trends. Nature Biotechnology, 17, 83–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dominguez-Lacasa, I. (2006). Capturing the changes in the knowledge base underlying drug discovery and development in the 20th century and the adjustment of Bayer, Hoechst, Schering AG and E.Merck to the advent of modern biotechnology. Scientometrics, 66(2), 345–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frame, D. (1977). Mainstream research in Latin America and the Caribbean. Interciencia, 2, 143–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2007). A bibliometric analysis of subject characteristics based on long-term citation observation. Characteristic scores and scales. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 92–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Danell, R., & Persson, O. (2003a). The decline of Swedish neuroscience–decomposing a bibliometric national science indicator. Scientometrics, 57(2), 197–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., & Meyer, M. (2008). ‘Triad’ or ‘Tetrad’? On global changes in a dynamic world. Scientometrics, 74(1), 59–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Gupta, B. M. (2008). Science in India. A bibliometric study of national and institutional research performance in 1991–2006. ISSI Newsletter, 4(3), 42–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Janssens, F., & Thijs, B. (2009). A comparative analysis of publication activity and citation impact based on the core literature in bioinformatics. Scientometrics, 79(1), 109–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Meyer, M. (2003). Patents cited in the scientific literature: an exploratory study of ‘reverse’ citation relations. Scientometrics, 58(2), 415–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Meyer, M., Schlemmer, B., du Plessis, M., Thijs, B., Magerman, T., Debackere, K., Veugelers, R. (2003b). “Biotechnology”—An Analysis based on Publications and Patents. http://www.ecoom.be/fileadmin/user_upload/domain_studies/biotech_domain_study.pdf.

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56(3), 357–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analyzing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. The use of Publication and patent statistics in studies on S and T Systems (pp. 257–276). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssens, F., Glänzel, W., de Moor, B. (2007). Dynamic hybrid clustering of bioinformatics by incorporating text mining and citation analysis. In P. Berkhin, R. Caruana, X. Wu, S. Gaffney (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD’07) (pp. 360–369) San Jose, California, USA. ACM Press.

  • Joly, P. B., & de Looze, M. A. (1999). Copropriété de brevets et coopération en R&D: une analyse dans les biotechnologies. Economie Appliquée, 52, 183–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leta, J., Glänzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2006). Science in Brazil. Part 2: sectoral and institutional research profiles. Scientometrics, 67(1), 87–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewison, G. (1994). Publications from the European community’s biotechnology action programme (BAP): multinationality, acknowledgement of support, and citations. Scientometrics, 31(2), 125–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, G. S., & Hamilton, R. D. (2007). The public science base of US biotechnology: a citation-weighted approach. Scientometrics, 72(1), 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2000). Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29(3), 409–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M., Debackere, K., Glänzel, W. (2010). Can applied science be ‘good science’? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience. Scientometrics. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0154-3.

  • Molatudi, M., & Pouris, A. (2006). Assessing the knowledge base for biotechnology in South Africa—A bibliometric analysis of South African microbiology and molecular biology and genetics research. Scientometrics, 68(1), 97–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1995). Linkage between agency supported research and patented industrial technology. Research Evaluation, 5(3), 183–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between U.S technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., & Noma, E. (1985). Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics, 7(3–6), 369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof, A. J. (1988). Changes in publication patterns of biotechnologists: An evaluation of the impact of government stimulation programs in six industrial nations. Scientometrics, 14(5–6), 475–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordstrom, L. O. (1987). Applied versus basic science in the literature of plant biology: a bibliometric perspective. Scientometrics, 12(5–6), 381–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramani, S. V., & Delooze, M. A. (2002). Using patent statistics as knowledge base indicators in the biotechnology sectors: an application to France, Germany and the UK. Scientometrics, 54(3), 319–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • REIST-2. (1997), The European Report on Science and Technology Indicators 1997. EUR 17639. European Commission, Brussels.

  • Rip, A., & Courtial, J. P. (1984). Co-word maps of biotechnology: an example of cognitive Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 6(6), 381–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative-assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 9(5–6), 281–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1990). World flash on basic research: International collaboration in the sciences, 1981–1985. Scientometrics, 19(1), 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, A., Glänzel, W., & Braun, T. (1989). World flash on basic research: scientometric datafiles. A comprehensive set of indicators on 2649 journals and 96 countries in all major science fields and subfields, 1981–1985. Scientometrics, 16(1–6), 3–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, S. M. (1992). The evaluation of plant biomass research: a case study of the problems inherent in bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 23(1), 149–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Looy, B., Magerman, T., & Debackere, K. (2007). Developing technology in the vicinity of science: an examination of the relationship between science intensity (of patents) and technological productivity within the field of biotechnology. Scientometrics, 70(2), 441–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2008). China Ranks Second in Scientific Publications since 2006. ISSI Newsletter, 4(1), 7–9.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for R & D Monitoring (ECOOM), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Wolfgang Glänzel & Ping Zhou

  2. Faculty FBE, Department MSI, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Wolfgang Glänzel & Ping Zhou

  3. Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China, Beijing, China

    Ping Zhou

  4. Hungarian Academy of Sciences, IRPS, Budapest, Hungary

    Wolfgang Glänzel

Authors
  1. Wolfgang Glänzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ping Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolfgang Glänzel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Glänzel, W., Zhou, P. Publication activity, citation impact and bi-directional links between publications and patents in biotechnology. Scientometrics 86, 505–525 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0269-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0269-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation